Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz
Chuck,
Don't forget this...
<R19> ROBOTS must be designed so that in normal operation BALLS cannot extend more than 3 inches inside
a) the FRAME PERIMETER below the level of the BUMPER ZONE (see Figure 8-5),
b) a MECHANISM or feature designed or used to deflect BALLS in a controlled manner that is above the level of the BUMPER ZONE.
R19 remains unchanged and may have played into the decision.
|
Absolutely, which begs the question is this an inspection issue or a referee issue? As an inspector we required the robots to have some reasonable protection on the top and sides such that the balls couldn’t enter the robot more than 3”. We required several teams to add some sort of netting, Lexan, or other cover on their tops and/or bars or something on the lower parts of the sides so that the balls didn’t have a reasonable chance of entering the robot by more than 3”. We assumed this to be the intent of <R19>. However, we didn’t require all the bots to be solid on the bottom as this would inhibit going over the bumps in most cases. If you incurred a penalty by riding up on the ball and trapping it under/inside your robot the inspectors considered that to be a field issue for the refs to deal with. I guess I am wondering what "normal operation" means? <R19> would seem to be an inspection issue as it is a robot rule not a game rule. If you designed your robot to go over the bump then is that not "normal operation"? If in "normal operation" a ball can go under and end up trapped inside your robot is this something the inspectors should fail or is this something to be left to the refs to penalize on the field?